Talk:Brawn GP

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2008 info

Is there any way we can get rid of the 08 lines from the infobox? -mattbuck (Talk) 02:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once the 2009 season starts they are removing those parts from the infobox. Eightball (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon??? But why are they there at all given this team has no 2008 info having not existed?!--Amedeo Felix (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the team template. Regardless of the current name of the team, it would be unrealistic to assume its previous incarnation has no bearing on its current form. Apterygial 12:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an illogical answer. If we accept that, which we might, then why not simply keep one page which starts with BAR and then became Hoda and finally Brawn??? The same could be for Renaut, i.e. a page that starts with Toleman, then becoming Benetton and finally Renault... Either it should be that way having ONE page for the whole history of a team/entry or we have separate pages for each incarnation - i.e. BAR has as much bearing on Brawn of today as does Honda, as without the purchase of their entry their would be no Brawn today...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to add as Honda to the title of that section. Chubbennaitor 16:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but arguing that a team that existed five years ago is just as relevant as one that existed five months ago is just plain wrong. Regardless, any argument is fairly pointless (even mine), as the template is not for turning until practice in Melbourne. Apterygial 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I thought we were debating what should apear here. Not just "arguing". What I stated was pure logic. Either have 1 page with teh whole history or totally sparate the history into pages for each "guise" of teh team. That's very straight forward reasoning. Who's control it is within is not relevant to the stating of that reasoning.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is faulty. It assumes that all team transfers are uniform, that we have to go all the way one way or the other. Lets be realistic here. We are talking about an infobox. Brawn F1 is the same entrant as Honda F1 as far as I am aware. Now, for clarity it has its own article, it is an entity in its own right, but it will be allocated slots on the grid etc based on last year I believe. So having the infobox to see that last year, as Honda, it did X or Y does not mean we are equating Honda to Brawn in everyway. Just accepting that as far as the sport is concerned, it is the same entrant, so the 2008 results of Honda are preferable to pretending Honda never existed and having blank lines in an info box. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TOE-MAY-TOE TOE-MAH-TOH. That's how this is reading. To me your logic is faulty, while you say mine is. I see no more continuity beween '08 & '09 than between all the years back through to BAR. A separation from Tyrrell is excusable since they only purchased their right to have an entry and no part of team infrastructure. However BAR, Honda and Brawn are all essentially the same team by differing names. So either split them off or keep them together - this inbetween state of crossing over a part of that shared history IS illogical. You don't agree with me & I don't agree with you. However this debate is now here for others te be able to think about...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this debate will be irrelevant in 20 day's time, when the 2008 slots for all teams will be removed from the infobox template. My note above that debate is pointless is that what it comes down to is the wiki software. That is unavoidable. So, do you want to have an infobox that has a big white space, or one that points out, quietly and inoffensively, that maybe a team with the same drivers, staff, location, FIA entry, car (basically) is just about relevant enough for a mention? There are no clean lines in life, just as there are no clean lines in sport. Stop trying to draw them, and in less than three weeks time we can have a (imaginary) beer and laugh about the whole thing. Apterygial 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa whoa whoa. I wanted it removed because the fields were blank, and as Brawn didn't compete in 08 they weren't going to be filled in. If they have Honda info, fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. I just won't be talked down to. I have my view on how things should be sorted, and I expressed it. That's all as far as I'm concerned.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you think you are right and want to express that, but regardless of you what you put in the infobox, the 2008 lines are going to be removed in a little over two weeks. It's not a remotely important issue. Right now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and that doesn't help with anything. Eightball (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with a 2008 infobox?? Last year Ross Brawn was apart of Honda Racing F1, this year he is running Brawn GP, why is there such a big argument about it?? --Danny 93 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody have insight into the logo? I know Brawn is after him, but the way it is designed looks like there's a separation between the BR and AWN, and I wonder if it might be a play on words for the team's new regional identification. BR(-ackley's)AWN(Own). Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just meant to look fast. Eightball (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too long already

There's far too much detail on pre-season testing. At this rate the article will be a mile long by the end of the season. Testing is not particularly important anyway - suggest a bit of pruning. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Shall I put it as the car section putting BGP 001 as the sub-heading and writing something about strong pace and them heading to Aus? Chubbennaitor 19:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, basically. I think most of it is more appropriate for the Brawn BGP 001 article, and just a basic outline will do for this article which is pretty much what you've done :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, thanks for getting the article up. I suspect you can trim down the pre-season stuff as the run for the money hots up! Looking forward to seeing how well Brawn GP does in light of Honda's poor performance over the past few years. --P Cottontail (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

Hmmm. According to the articles published on BBC & Autosport re Brawn having the LAST pit slot - they may end up with the last numbers too, i.e. they may not be 18 & 19.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. They take Honda's place even though counted as a new team and I won't go into what the FIA have done for them. Chubbennaitor 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from your curtness you fail to give any evidence for your stark denial. I refereed to the fact that this was mooted in legitimate news source, I didn't do anything rash such as change the numbers, I just brought up, here in "talk", the fact that this was raised in the news. You on the other hand make no reference to anything, but merely contradict. :-| --Amedeo Felix (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autosport article said exactly that Amedeo....if it isn't in the article, I'd suggest putting it in, though obviously the numbers issue isn't known, at least last time I looked. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's at the 2009 talk. I can't find the article but I know that Brawn didn't pay the entry fee. That's an example of the FIA's side-stepping. But every site shows them as in front of 'Fi'. McLaren should have had the last station in 2008 but were a loud for a few GPs to take the fourth box. Chubbennaitor 13:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One to support me. Anyway. Leave it as it is because in a week we'll find out. The info at the moment is a bit too hard evidence against Brawn not being 18-19. Chubbennaitor 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think an edit in about the pitlane position is fine. And that the number situation is unclear. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think what you wrote was just a bit too much like the new article? It sounds too 'trivial'. (Not sure that's the word I'm looking for). Chubbennaitor 16:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What new article? --Narson ~ Talk • 16:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
News Article! the quote doesn't seem to make sense. Chubbennaitor 16:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers now are 22 and 23: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73897. Fsarmony (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a song and dance over some lousy numbers nobody shall even be able to see clearly...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Chubbennaitor 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure? If you mean am I sure F1 numbers are nearly invisible these days, then yes I am sure. There has been no regulation requiring large clearly visible numbers for a very long time, and as a consequence they have grown smaller and smaller and displayed in less and less prominent places on the cars. I'd very happily return to the large white circles with large clear block-print black numbers used up to the early 70s.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just I saw the numbers on the rear wing of Brawn and they are fairly easy to see on most cars. Chubbennaitor 06:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an opinion I happen to share.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Sponsorship

OK so confirmed the sponsorship, but I think no statement about teh chassis name being changed should be made unless backed up bu some sort of official entry listing.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The team name hasn't changed either, although it may in future. The Autosport report says "It is not a title sponsorship deal and the team's official name will remain unchanged for now." -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My initial understanding was the same. A chassis rename is uncommon. But then I read this. It says that the car will be (or rather, has been) renamed. I'm not sure what to make of it. I feel the title of the article should be kept the same, but there needs to be some mention of the renaming. LeaveSleaves 12:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watching the coverage this morning and the interview with Branson, it seemed the deal was more that just sponsorship and to me it seemed perhaps the Virgin Group actually did provide the funding for the management buyout instead of a straight buy out themselves. From reading the above link to the beeb site saying the chassis will change name probably adds to that because rarely is a chassis named after the main sponsor but the actual name of the team, for example its McLaren MP4-24 not Vodafone MP4-24. Once it becomes even more official Brawn BGP 001 will most likely have to be moved, but as it stand the brawngp website still has it as BGP 001. I don't think the team name will change, albeit at least not this season. Uksam88 (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the operative word is the BBC report is "will" - like the "for now" in the Autosport report, it suggests that there may well be agreement for Virgin to become the title sponsor. However, as yet, it isn't. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. SO leave the car name alone, and like as not it will never change as sponsor names, even title sponsors, as pointed out NEVER form part of chassis names.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engines?

Not having followed previous year's F1 circus, I came here to find out how a formerly-Honda team came about to use Mercedes engines. This information is not given in the article, just the fact that they do. (And by comparing the infobox with that of [McLaren], I also find out that it's the very same engine McLaren uses, not a second-rate one.) This is interesting information; perhaps someone in the know could add it. -- DevSolar (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume because Ross Brawn bought the team, with Honda not competing in F1 any more, so they won't be producing engines, hence the choice. As for second rate engines, they should all be the same performance. Silent52 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check Force India and the fact they're Brawn-Mercedes. Chubbennaitor 08:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get teh point though. A mention of Mercedes stepping in, even though they did not have to, and the secondary fact that a dispensation was granted for Mercedes to supply a third team would be germane to this article.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the engine they use so what's the problem. Chubbennaitor 10:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, although it's extreme to call it that, is a lack of information on WHY they are using Mercedes engines, and not Honda engines, or even Ferrari engines. They are not using Honda engines, which could easily be the case, because Honda said they wold not supply engines, and they are not using Ferrari engines because although they evaluated both Ferrari and Mercedes they found it easier to adapt their car to use the Merc's. It IS also worth mentioning the fact that Mercedes chose to supply engines when they had no obligation to do so, in fact regulations would have prohibited them from doing so had not ALL teams agreed to waive the restriction of two teams per engine supplier. These are FACTS and as such DO belong in an encyclopaedic entry on this team. However none of this constitutes a problem... --Amedeo Félix (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are happy enough to explain here why they are doing X and not Y, why not take the initiative make the necessary edits to the wiki page? If we all sat around moaning why isn't certain information there because no one has taken the time to add it we would have a very sparse encyclopedia.Uksam88 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because they signed a deal with McLaren. We have references every, I don't know how you could have missed it. Chubbennaitor 15:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shoudl be pointed out that we're first trying to work out what people agree to have included, because there seems to be some disagreement on that issue here. that means people like me stating what I think should be included and why.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The OP asked that someone with the know how place certain information which they were unaware of in the article. You proceeded to give said info. There wasn't really a discussion as to why it should or shouldn't go in. Beside do we really need to explain why Ferrari (or whoever) haven't given them an engine? The same reason BMW haven't, because they didn't sell them one... Uksam88 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is over why Mercedes is mentioned in the article (not BMW or Ferrari). All I know is that the engines need to be mentioned on Brawn BGP 001 as it's part of the cars history. Chubbennaitor 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of it Chubb is that it isn't over whether Mercedes is mentioned or why it is, but the lack of context around that decision. Why did they pick Mercedes? Were there other options? Did Honda not offer customer engines or other such? Stuff we should probably look to including. It was a fair critique of a shortcoming in the article. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explain? I've said that this discussion is over why mercedes is mentioned and I've said that in the BGP 001 article the engine should be mentioned not on the Brawn GP article. Chubbennaitor 16:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what i thought Narson, however Amedeo Félix gave reasonings to all if not any of them, however seemed to lay the blame at other editors for not placing said info in the article when he could easily do it himself because after all "These are FACTS and as such DO belong in an encyclopaedic entry on this team. However none of this constitutes a problem..." If people feel something should be in an article, they know the information that should go in and can find sources for it also they should do it. It just seems recently a lot of editors are going on talkpages moaning about what should/should not be in an article then doing nothing about it themselves. Like i said previously, if we all adopted this approach, we'd have a very sparse encyclopedia. But however, should we really need to go into great detail about the engines when it would be more suited on Brawn BGP 001 Uksam88 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Balderdash. If you don't discuss an addition it oft gets deleted...--Amedeo Félix (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my position was one of backing the notion of adding more background, as mooted by another user. I don't feel able to add what I spoke of as I don't have references to my finger nor the current inclination to find them. Someone else may however.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brawn - Virgin

I have reverted an editor who changed the title of the team to Virgin in places. I have done this because the changes are not sourced and even if they were it could be argued that the car that competed in Australia yesterday was still a Brawn whatever it may be called in the future. Britmax (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed only the name of the car, not the team. The name change of the car has been confirmed by formula1.com [1] and by BBC News, which confirmed that part of the deal here: [2]. I did not change the name of the team because that has not changed. I'm sorry if I didn't reference these changes properly, but I've listed them here. Sargantt 09:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the BBC News article is dated Saturday, so the car was called the Virgin BGP 001 in the Sunday race, if not in qualifying. Sargantt 09:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just read the conversation two sections above. Sorry! I shan't bother editing again, it seems like too much hard work. Sargantt 09:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The car was not called the Virgin anything during the race, as it just might have been referred to as that by at least one of the many sources we use. If the name of the car is changed, it will be announced properly. Thanks for your dedication, could you move back the article you moved, please? Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and would point out that the casual manner of referal is no proof of change of team or car name. If you can link to an official entry list of the FIA calling team and/or car Virging whatever then and only then could this be seen as correct.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its really down to were you are taking you information from. The Mclaren MP4-24 is sometimes just that, other times it can be the Vodafone Mclaren MP4-24 or even Vodafone Mclaren-Mercedes MP4-24. Officially according to Brawngp the car is just called BGP 001 - http://www.brawngp.com/teaminfo.asp --- Gordy (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is officially the Brawn BGP 001 as it belongs to Brawn. Chubbennaitor 13:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrawnGP are NOT really a new team

Whilst FIA considered Brawn GP to be an entirely new entry in F1, in reality this car was developed by Honda (with Ross Brawn) of course. Whilst perhaps officially as a maiden team BrawnGP may be seen to have broken many records in their first "rookie" year, the reality is much much different. Therfore, this should be clearly highlighted on Wikipedia. BrawnGP are NOT a de facto new team to F1, but a de facto continuation and evolution of Honda F1. BrawnGP did not start from scratch.

I am a big admirer of Jenson Button and Ross Brawn (and Barrichello too) by the way, but I just think this "in their first year" aspect needs to be corrected loud and clear as this was NOT a de facto brand new team. If you want a source, ask Ross Brawn! This car was in development at Honda long before Honda ever sold their Honda F1 unit!

194.46.169.188 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

I'm adding to the teams' history the sequence of buyings until now so that we don't need to trace it everytime we want to know what was the original team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsarmony (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but can the article also be amended so that all mentions of "debut achievements" are removed as Brawn GP were not de facto a debut team. 11:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.235.174 (talk)

Mercedes Takeover

I want to see an official Mercedes press release stating what the current reference states. Until then, is it really reliable enough to be here? --Chrill (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's offical and on both the BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8362295.stm) and Autosport (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80174) website. Bjmullan (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The initial paragraph need tidying up as there are two mention of the buyout, the tense also need to be changed. It may also be a good idea to have another section at the head "Mercedes purchase" or something like that? Bjmullan (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection

In light of the take-over of Brawn GP by Mercedes, I am requesting that the page be semi-protected to avoid vandalism. Bolmedias (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the request was denied. If there is vandalism to the page over the next few days then I will request semi-protection again, otherwise I will drop the issue. Bolmedias (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, but pages just aren't protected pre-emptively, it's WP policy. I've watchlisted this page (and the Merc GP one) and I'll keep an eye on it too. If vandalism escalates (well, starts really, there's only been one on here) then I'll protect. Please note, though, that there's been lots of constructive IP edits over this issue. Thanks. GedUK  13:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% championship record

"The fact that the team only raced for one season under the Brawn GP name makes it the only constructor to have won 100% of the championships it has entered." Doesn't this also apply to the 1950s Mercedes team?--Midgrid(talk) 12:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past-tense already?

So yeah, changing the name of the team means it no longer exists? Can't we just move this to the new name and count it as a former name? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:F1 convention is to create a new article when a team changes name. DH85868993 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, it's more than just a new name: it's new ownership as well. :) --Midgrid(talk) 23:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to consider Brawn and Mercedes to be the same entity. If that is the case, Jaguar Racing should be merged into the Red Bull Racing page, Minardi into Toro Rosso, etc. so it makes complete sense to keep it this way. Wanderer1993 (talk) 17:22. 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tidy-up

I have taken the liberty of refining the information in the lead section to include only salient points, placed the remainder in the body of the article, and removed POV since it did not nearly meet WP:LEAD guidelines. I also adjusted header levels and section positions for a more logical layout. I hope I haven't trodden on the toes of regular contributors here – if so feel free to revert. --TransientVoyager (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brawn GP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brawn GP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brawn GP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Brawn GP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Brawn_GP"